Useful clarifications

1: The Friends Website calderstones-cemetery.org.uk is accessible to everybody and contains all our information and records, which we try to ensure are always honest, accurate and respectfully recorded. We can and do make mistakes, but any readers who spot errors in the information or records are invited to contact the Friends with their suggested corrections. We have made three such corrections in the last four years.

2:The Friends are seeking to retain the consecrated status for the whole three- acre Cemetery, as it was first established in 1916, including the one-acre portion known as the military section. We believe that it is important for everybody, the families and friends, the local community, the established Church, the Council and the owners of RPC Ltd to promote respect and equal treatment towards the deceased, avoiding any suggestion of discrimination between the deserving 33 military personnel and the much greater number of the seemingly less deserving other people.

3: Prior to January 11th 2018, and our revelation to her that the Cemetery was a consecrated site, the Friends had a co-operative and productive relationship with Angela Dunn, in fact Angela, was an acknowledged joint author of part of our earliest records of burials in the Cemetery. Unfortunately, that relationship was abruptly and unilaterally ended by Angela's then Director who instructed her to have no further contact with the Friends. We have never been told who that Director was or the reason for his decision, but we believe that it had not been Angela's choice to terminate the contact and research activities, which we shared at that time.

4: The recent information provided by RPC to the Assistant Archdeacon and Archdeacon appears to have been collected and collated, solely by RPC. Despite the considerable amount of time that was involved and our repeated requests for copies, there has been no contact or involvement with the Friends, in the preparation of RPC's information, although some of the detail appears to have been copied from our records.

5: The Archdeacon apparently made his application for partial de-consecration of the Cemetery in September 2023, which we believe was based on the information which RPC had provided, but we are unable to explain why we were not given access to this seemingly important and substantial amount of material until February 8th 2024, which was after the deadline which the Bishop had given in his Christmas Eve notification of the Archdeacon's September application.

6: The RPC information has presumably been provided to the Assistant Archdeacon and the Archdeacon with the express intention of demonstrating that RPC have identified each of the relevant Calderstones deaths and know the location of all the graves in the Cemetery. We believe that this claim is evidently wrong, and based on the part of the information we have studied so far, would have expected it to have been quickly evident to anybody who had read the substantial tome.

7: Rather than support the claims which RPC are making, and the conclusions it seems to have reached, we believe that on the contrary, this information gives even more additional details to support the very strong evidence which the Friends have already provided in the two most recent submissions to Bishop Philip, and in the earlier submission made to Bishop Julian in March 2019

8: Had the Friends been invited to contribute to the collection of information, or even the summary of those details when it was completed in August 2023, then we believe that the information would have been substantially corrected, with misunderstandings addressed, superfluous, confusing and irrelevant information removed and with certainties and uncertainties honestly acknowledged, rather than ignored.

9: It is important to correct what appears to be a repeated misunderstanding that the Friends are somehow specifically opposed to crematoria. For the avoidance of doubt, in maintaining our support for the retention of the consecrated status across the whole cemetery, the Friends would be opposed to the removal of that consecrated status to permit the construction of any buildings, be they housing, a McDonald's franchise, garage or convenience store etc.

10: Five years ago, the Friends produced a series of nine questions for the Owners which became known as "The nine- points Document" seeking clarification on some basic facts about their early involvement with the Cemetery. The questions are very simple and easy to understand but if answered, they would resolve so many current uncertainties, yet we have been consistently refused answers. The questions were addressed to people who at that time had directorships or employment with BORI Ltd. It would appear, that two of the same people now have a directorship or employment with RPC. A clear and detailed answer to those nine questions, although five years late, would resolve many uncertainties and help everybody, by providing a coherent understanding of the cemetery's recent history and potential future. Some members have rightly questioned, why the Owners have failed to provide any response to these simple points?

11: We will address ownership with the different companies and directors who have been involved with the Cemetery later, but the current registered owners of Remembrance Parks Construction Ltd (RPC) are Mr N J Gerard and Mrs S A Gerard. We have tried on numerous occasions since 2018 to arrange a face to face meeting with Mr Gerard, at his convenience where we might discuss the current neglect, and future of the Cemetery, but have never received a reply. Now might be an opportune time to make that request again, openly and publicly via the Website. We have therefore again written to Mr Gerard, and on this occasion, also to Mrs Gerard, respectfully requesting a face to face meeting at a time and location of their choosing, to discuss the potential options for the Cemetery's future.

12: The Friends are concerned at the confusion and seemingly casual acceptance that RPC have full planning permission for the development of a crematorium, based on plans which were altered before approval in March 2019, and according to Bishop Julian's summary, which subsequently might need further changes. Any reading of the 2019 planning approval would clearly show that the planning permission is CONDITIONAL on the owners having the necessary licences and approvals from other authorities, over which, the Ribble Valley Borough Council has no authority. It could be misleading to talk of the planning permission without explaining the conditionality of that permission

13: In considering the potential future use of the Cemetery, the current owners, RPC Ltd, would like to see a partial removal of the consecrated status to give them the necessary ecclesiastic permission to proceed with their construction plans. However, the Friends believe that the consecrated status of the whole three-acre Cemetery, including the military section should be sacrosanct and remain so unless there was demonstrably no need for the continuance of that status. It might be said by some that RPC are proposing to have the cart before the horse, or more accurately, that the ends are being used to excuse, obfuscate and justify the means.

14: In their submission to the Bishop, the Friends have clearly demonstrated their preference and support for the Cemetery returning to public ownership, management and maintenance, similar to that which it enjoyed for the 84 years prior to 2000, and as we believe was clearly intended at that time, and was confirmed in the letter to Nigel Evans MP from Stephen Hammond, the then Minister for State in the Department of Health in 2019.

15: In 2000, the Cemetery was sold as a consecrated site containing the remains of what were approximately 1200 former patients and staff of the Hospital. The price asked for and received, reflect the fact that the consecrated status and presence of so many bodies, severely restricted the potential uses of the land to the continuance of a cemetery as has happened, with the nearby Brockhall Hospital Cemetery, apparently mistakenly sold on the same day.

16: At that first sale to a Mr Walsh in October 2000, and in each of the many subsequent purchases and transfers since, the potential purchaser or their legal representative has been responsible for due diligence, checking the suitability, limitation and restrictions which might apply to the purchase they are making. Like any other purchase, "caveat emptor" applied to the decisions of RPC Ltd, BORI Ltd, and BOR Ltd. Anybody purchasing a house or business would be responsible for making the necessary legal checks on a potential purchase, that's why everyday people engage a solicitor to complete those essential checks on their behalf. So, we must assume that the directors of these companies either already knew that the Cemetery was a consecrated site, or failed in their responsibilities for due diligence, but the consequences of that failure must rest with them.

17: The potential commercial viability and the current lack of any revenue from the Cemetery are frequently used by representatives of RPC Ltd to support their proposals for future development. However, RPC Ltd and presumably its predecessor BORI Ltd were fully aware that there was clear evidence that previous owners had been unable to operate the Cemetery as a financially profitable private cemetery when they purchased or transferred the site, and presumably at the time, took professional advice on the market valuation of a consecrated cemetery. It is not the responsibility of the Friends to suggest an alternative use providing a profitable return for RPC Ltd on the transfer/purchase it made, in full knowledge of the consecrated status of the Cemetery very shortly after Bishop Julian had upheld that status in his decision of June 2019. The Friends would prefer the Cemetery to revert to public ownership and be maintained with the same standards of respect and maintenance as you would find at Clitheroe Cemetery.

18: In attempts to defend its own interests, it is perhaps inevitable that representatives of RPC Ltd have consistently ignored or questioned the evidence which the Friends have provided in four separate submissions to the Diocese, in the past five years. Instead, our evidence is wholly or selectively ignored as are requests for responses to requests for face to face meetings with the Owners, honest and full answers to the nine points Document, and clarity about what happened and who was responsible for the construction of a roadway within the Cemetery, without faculty and seemingly contrary to the Owners' wishes.

19: Section 5, of the Cremation Act 1902, clearly indicates the consents which would be required before any construction of a crematorium could take place. These necessary consents are referred to by RVBC in the conditional planning approval which was granted in March 2019. Put simply, as far as we are aware any neighbour living within 200 years of the proposed crematorium would have to give prior CONSENT to the development. The Diocese and RVBC are aware of this situation and we believe neighbours have already notified the Diocese and the Council, that they will not consent. However, we understand that writing on behalf of RPC Ltd, Mr R Dunn, contested the neighbours' rights in this matter, but did not indicate the source of the legal advice on which he had formed his opinion.

20: The continuing and intentional neglect of the Cemetery remains a concern for many people, particularly the families and friends of the deceased. We have encouraged as many people as possible to see the graves and the neglected site, preferably by visiting the Cemetery or seeing the videos and photos which are available on different websites, and media outlets. It is claimed that the Owners', who apparently may have substantial commercial interests elsewhere are unable to afford any maintenance unless it is tied to permission to develop a crematorium. That may be the case, but visitors are likely be left with a lasting impression of abandonment and disappointment, and perhaps their trust and hopes for the future will be influenced more by what they see, than what they are told.